Table of Contents

National Assessment Program Survey of Criminal Justice Agencies in the United States, 1992-1994 (ICPSR 6481)

Principal Investigator(s):McEwen, J. Thomas, Institute for Law and Justice

Summary:

The National Assessment Program (NAP) Survey was conducted
to determine the needs and problems of state and local criminal
justice agencies. At the local level in each sampled county, survey
questionnaires were distributed to police chiefs of the largest city,
sheriffs, jail administrators, prosecutors, public defenders, chief
trial court judges, trial court administrators (where applicable), and
probation and parole agency heads. Data were collected at the state
level through surveys sent to attorneys general, commissioners of
correcti... (more info)

The National Assessment Program (NAP) Survey was conducted
to determine the needs and problems of state and local criminal
justice agencies. At the local level in each sampled county, survey
questionnaires were distributed to police chiefs of the largest city,
sheriffs, jail administrators, prosecutors, public defenders, chief
trial court judges, trial court administrators (where applicable), and
probation and parole agency heads. Data were collected at the state
level through surveys sent to attorneys general, commissioners of
corrections, prison wardens, state court administrators, and directors
of probation and parole. For the 1992-1994 survey, 13 separate
questionnaires were used. Police chiefs and sheriffs received the same
survey instruments, with a screening procedure employed to identify
sheriffs who handled law enforcement responsibilities. Of the 411
counties selected, 264 counties also employed trial court
administrators. Judges and trial court administrators received
identical survey instruments. A total of 546 surveys were mailed to
probation and parole agencies, with the same questions asked of state
and local officers. Counties that had separate agencies for probation
and parole were sent two surveys. All survey instruments were divided
into sections on workload (except that the wardens, jail
administrators, and corrections commissioners were sent a section on
jail use and crowding instead), staffing, operations and procedures,
and background. The staffing section of each survey queried
respondents on recruitment, retention, training, and number of
staff. The other sections varied from instrument to instrument, with
questions tailored to the responsibilities of the particular
agency. Most of the questionnaires asked about use of automated
information systems, programs, policies, or aspects of the facility or
security needing improvement, agency responsibilities and
jurisdictions, factors contributing to workload increases, budget,
number of fulltime employees and other staff, and contracted
services. Questions specific to police chiefs and sheriffs included
activities aimed at drug problems and whether they anticipated
increases in authorized strength in officers. Jail administrators,
corrections commissioners, and wardens were asked about factors
contributing to jail crowding, alternatives to jail, medical services
offered, drug testing and drug-related admissions, and inmate
classification. Topics covered by the surveys for prosecutors, public
defenders, judges, and state and trial court administrators included
types of cases handled, case timeliness, diversion and sentencing
alternatives, and court and jury management. State and local probation
and parole agency directors were asked about diagnostic tools,
contracted services, and drug testing. Attorneys general were queried
about operational issues, statutory authority, and legal services and
support provided to state and local criminal justice agencies.

Access Notes

The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public.
Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

Dataset(s)

WARNING: Because this study has many datasets, the download all files option has been suppressed, and you will need to download one dataset at a time.

Study Description

Citation

McEwen, J. Thomas. NATIONAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM SURVEY OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1992-1994. ICPSR version. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Law and Justice [producer], 1994. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1996. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06481.v1

Universe:
State and local criminal justice agencies in the United
States.

Data Types:
survey data

Methodology

Study Purpose:
The National Institute of Justice conducts the
National Assessment Program (NAP) Survey approximately every three
years to determine the needs and problems of state and local criminal
justice agencies. Survey results indicate the extent to which heads of
agencies believe their efforts need improvement and identify key areas
in which strategies need to be established. Survey results also point
out the needs of these agencies and specify programs and strategies
that might be effective in addressing the prevailing issues.

Study Design:
At the local level in each sampled county, survey
questionnaires were distributed to police chiefs of the largest city,
sheriffs, jail administrators, prosecutors, public defenders, chief
trial court judges, trial court administrators (where applicable), and
probation and parole agency heads. Data were collected at the state
level through surveys sent to attorneys general, commissioners of
corrections, prison wardens, state court administrators, and directors
of probation and parole. For the 1992-1994 survey, 13 separate
questionnaires were used. Police chiefs and sheriffs received the same
survey instruments, with a screening procedure employed to identify
sheriffs who handled law enforcement responsibilities. The 347
sheriffs identified in this manner usually had law enforcement
responsibilities in the unincorporated areas of the county. Of the 411
counties selected, 264 counties also had trial court
administrators. These administrators were typically responsible for
the administration and management of the court, relieving judges of
these activities and providing them with more time to concentrate on
cases. Judges and trial court administrators received identical survey
instruments. An accompanying letter asked both the judge and
administrator to complete individual surveys because of the different
perspectives of the two functions. A total of 546 surveys were mailed
to probation and parole agencies, with the same questions asked of
state and local officers. Counties that had separate agencies for
probation and parole were sent two surveys.

Sample:
Surveys were sent to criminal justice agencies in a sample
of 411 counties. All 211 United States counties having populations
greater than 250,000 residents were selected, along with a random
sample of 200 counties having populations between 50,000 and 250,000
residents. Police chiefs were selected by determining the city in each
county with the highest population according to the 1990 Census. Over
50 percent of the counties were represented by either a judge or trial
court administrator. Prison facilities were selected for the NAP
survey by reviewing the directory of correctional facilities, 1993
AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION DIRECTORY: JUVENILE AND ADULT
CORRECTIONAL DEPARTMENTS, INSTITUTIONS, AGENCIES AND PAROLING
AUTHORITIES (American Correctional Association, Laurel, Maryland).
Adult male and female prison facilities at all security levels were
included in the sample.

Data Source:

self-enumerated questionnaires

Description of Variables:
All survey instruments were divided into sections
on workload (except that the wardens, jail administrators, and
corrections commissioners were sent a section on jail use and crowding
instead), staffing, operations and procedures, and background. The
staffing section of each survey queried respondents on recruitment,
retention, training, and number of staff. The other sections varied
from instrument to instrument, with questions tailored to the
responsibilities of the particular agency. Most of the questionnaires
asked about use of automated information systems, programs, policies,
or aspects of the facility or security needing improvement, agency
responsibilities and jurisdictions, factors contributing to workload
increases, budget, number of fulltime employees and other staff, and
contracted services. Questions specific to police chiefs and sheriffs
included activities aimed at drug problems and whether they
anticipated increases in authorized strength in officers. Jail
administrators, corrections commissioners, and wardens were asked
about factors contributing to jail crowding, alternatives to jail,
medical services offered, drug testing and drug-related admissions,
and inmate classification. Topics covered by the surveys for
prosecutors, public defenders, judges, and state and trial court
administrators included types of cases handled, case timeliness,
diversion and sentencing alternatives, and court and jury
management. State and local probation and parole agency directors were
asked about diagnostic tools, contracted services, and drug
testing. Attorneys general were queried about operational issues,
statutory authority, and legal services and support provided to state
and local criminal justice agencies.

Extent of Processing: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of
disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major
statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to
these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Standardized missing values.

Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Version(s)

Original ICPSR Release:1997-03-07

Version History:

2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one
or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well
as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable,
and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to
reflect these additions.

Download Statistics

Located within ICPSR, NACJD is sponsored by the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Institute of Justice, and the Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

This website is funded through Inter-agency agreements through the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of
the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor any of its
components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse, this website (including, without limitation,
its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided).